Language Access in Healthcare
EvidenceE-0252Initial AI draft

Complication responses showed lower proxy-interpreter agreement (kappa 0.69) attributed to an ambiguous complication definition

2026-06-053 out · 0 in

Source

Xue (2019). Interpreter proxy versus healthcare interpreter for administration of patient surveys following arthroplasty: a pilot study. BMC Med Res Methodol.

Description #

The complications item showed the lowest agreement among the yes/no event questions, with kappa = 0.69 (substantial but not perfect) between interpreter-proxy and healthcare-interpreter administration (Table 3). The authors attribute this to uncertainty over what counts as a complication (defined as requiring active management but not readmission or reoperation), unlike the discrete readmission/reoperation events that reached kappa = 1.00.

"Complications 0.69 - - - - -" (Xue, 2019, p. 5, Table 3)

"Agreement for determining complication was lower (kappa = 0.69), a discrepancy which may have been due to uncertainty over the exact nature of a complication, which was defined as requiring active management but not readmission or reoperation." (Xue, 2019, p. 6)

Methods Context #

What? #

The observable: agreement between the two administration methods on the yes/no complications item.

"Complications: 'Have you experienced any complications after the operation since being discharged from hospital'; a standard list of common complications was read out." (Xue, 2019, p. 3)

How? #

Nominal data were analysed with an unweighted Cohen's kappa on the paired proxy/interpreter responses from each participant's two randomised interviews. See A-0009.

"Nominal data measures were analysed with an unweighted Cohen's kappa coefficient." (Xue, 2019, p. 3)

Who? #

85 LEP hip or knee arthroplasty patients at their routine 6-month registry follow-up.

"Eighty-five patients successfully received both methods of follow-up calls and were included in the data analysis." (Xue, 2019, p. 3)

Other Notes #

This is the one event item that did not reach perfect agreement; the authors treat the ambiguous item definition, not the interpreter type, as the likely driver.